Neither the game that is woke nor the game
boycotted by wokes went broke.
It's almost like gamers have other priorities.
It's almost like it's a false equivalency that fails even on a direct comparison. Baldur's Gate 3 is doing ten times the numbers it was expected to.
It is the game
itself that is accused of being woke as opposed to the other game where it was the author of the books who is not.
I don't think a product has to be marketed as 'woke' to be, or to be perceived as, 'woke'.
If Baldur's Gate has produced outrage from the anti-woke crowd (and if the description of it above is accurate I can see why it would), and if its sales have been unaffected by that outrage, it's an example of a product which contradicts the title of this thread.
The character creator allows you to pick your 'presentation', which are the pronouns, as man, woman, neither, or other iirc. There are four main bodies for most races, two masc and two fem. Then you can choose your genitals (if you have nudity enabled) and those can be any regardless of your choices of the other two choices (except maybe for Dragonborn, not being mammals and all).
It hasn't been
marketed as 'woke' as far as I know, but then again it's had a
very small* marketing budget. It is a property licensed from Hasbo, but the studio self-published it, and is a relatively small studio. It's 30% owned by Tencent (Chinese megagame conglomerate) but was not otherwise connected or supported by them. The owners are the founder and his wife. The Potter game had much, much more marketing.
As you point out, that really isn't a valid metric anyway. It has been accused of being 'woke' throughout its development, and the final options have only made that worse. Some that accused it of that are doing the same thing they did with the Mario movie and trying to claim it wasn't really woke, which is why it is doing so unexpectedly well.
EDIT: *small relative to most AAA releases of course, and especially compared to Potter.